Martin McEvoy wrote:
>> PS: Andy, Martin - I'm just as frustrated with this approach as I'm sure
>> both of you are, especially since it was deemed that we couldn't change
>> TITLE from hCard... but now we're changing the meaning, quite blatantly,
>> for ITEM.
>> Hi Manu very thorough summary can you clarify one thing for me
> How are we quite blatantly changing the meaning for ITEM?
>> [1] http://microformats.org/wiki/item
I should have ended my statement with "Let's not argue core Microformat
principles, but instead focus on the issue at hand: naming". :)
I'm not referring to the hItem proposal you linked to, Martin. hItem is
a non-issue since it isn't anywhere close to the Draft stage in the
Microformats process.
Instead, I was referring to the definitions for ITEM that already exist.
ITEM is defined in both hReview and hListing. I copy/pasted the contents
of these definitions at the start of this thread.
>From what I understand, it is one of those unwritten Microformats
principles that we don't change the definitions of Microformat
properties. I think you remember the TITLE discussion for hAudio:
http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-new/2007-June/000511.html
Andy has also pointed out that we would be re-writing/re-purposing the
Microformat semantics of ITEM, which has previously been taboo. You have
traditionally disagreed with the definition of TITLE (as defined in
hCard) as well.
I was merely stating that we should overlook the flip-flop that the
community is doing and examine if ITEM is a good choice. In other words
- let's assume the prior definition that I stated earlier in this thread
for ITEM and go from there.
-- manu